Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures

It’s almost impossible to find English translations of Galen’s Hippocratic commentaries. There’s an English translation by W. J. Lewis of Galen’s commentary on the Nature of the Human Being available at the Society for Ancient Medicine site at Cambridge; and there are English translations by Uwe Vagelpohl of Arabic translations of some of Galen’s commentaries for the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum. That’s about it for English. The situation is only marginally better for French, German, Italian and Spanish (see the CMG’s Galen catalogue).

It is frustrating because Galen’s commentaries contain a huge amount of material on Greek scholarship of the second century—not only philosophy and medicine, but literature and philology as well. They are also important parts of the reception of earlier philosophy, medicine, literature and philology, since many later scholars drew from and responded to them in Syriac, Arabic, Latin and Greek traditions. Making them more widely available in modern language translations would help to open the field up quite a bit.

As for the texts themselves, some of Galen’s commentaries have modern critical editions and are available online in Greek and / or in Arabic at the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. Some are in preparation (like Airs, Waters, Places in Arabic). Others are still to be edited, like much of the Aphorisms commentary.

A lot of in-depth scholarship is still behind paywalls. The most important study, for instance, is the 1994 contribution, “Galeno commentatore di Ippocrate” by Daniela Manetti and Amneris Roselli, to the Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (I see De Gruyter sells the article for 30 EUR). There’s also great new work by Manetti and Roselli in a few recent volumes, as well as work by (and the following are merely examples) Hans Diller, Georg Harig and Jutta Kollesch, Geoffrey Lloyd, Mario Vegetti, Paola Manuli, Heinrich von Staden and P. N. Singer. I’d add Glenn Most’s work on ancient Greco-Roman scholarship and David Sedley’s work on commentary and philosophical allegiance to the list of important resources that are not always easy to find online (less of a necessity for now while the pandemic restrictions are being relaxed). There are surely many others.

There is however a scholarly and open-access discussion of Galen’s Hippocratic commentary and Hippocratism in a piece by Jacques Jouanna called “Galen’s Reading of the Hippocratic Treatise The Nature of Man: The Foundations of Hippocratism in Galen” from the 2012 volume of his collected papers published by Brill. And there’s the wonderful 1979 book The Hippocratic Tradition by Wesley Smith that’s available online in a special electronic edition Smith revised for BIU Santé in 2002.

Lately, I’ve been posting translations of the more programmatic or weird bits of Galen’s commentaries to try to make them a bit more accessible (also to motivate me while I write a chapter on them for a handbook). This time it’s the preface to Galen’s commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures.

Galen’s commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures belongs to an earlier period of Galen’s Hippocratic scholarship, when he was writing mainly at the request of friends (as in last week’s post). The period includes commentaries on Aphorisms, Fractures, Joints, Prognosis, Regimen in Acute Diseases, Wounds, Injuries of the Head, and Epidemics 1. Eventually, he says he started producing commentaries for wider publication, after he came across some particularly bad but popular commentaries written by a couple of physicians named Lycos and Julian. These are commentaries on Nature of the Human Being, Epidemics 2, Epidemics 3, Epidemics 6, Humours, Nutriment, Prorrhetic, Surgery and Airs, Waters, Places.

The preface to the commentary on Fractures is unique because it contains a summary of Galen’s reflection on interpretation (exegesis) from his lost essay On Interpretation.* In that work, Galen says he defined interpretation as the ability to make what is obscure in written texts clear. He also distinguishes two kinds of interpretation according to a distinction between two kinds of obscurity: obscurity per se and obscurity relative to the audience (perhaps drawing on Platonist categorial distinction between things that exist kath’auto and pros ti). Something is obscure per se when it implies a contradiction. Something is obscure relative to an audience when the audience is unfamiliar with the subject of the discussion.

Galen thinks the result is that interpreting something that is obscure per se will be different from interpreting something that is only obscure relative to the audience. In the latter case, Galen says he’ll nearly always clarify what is relatively obscure in the case of anatomical claims, but for the most part he’ll target people who are already fairly well trained in philosophy, literature and medicine. We also find Galen’s views on what teaching at different levels consists in.

Comments on the translation welcome.

Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’ Fractures, preface

“Before going on to individual interpretations, it is better to have an understanding of interpretation in general: that its capacity is to make clear whatever in written treatises is obscure. To demonstrate something written down as true, or to refute it as false—even if someone alleges [the position] was defended sophistically—is distinct from interpretation, although it is customary for just about everyone who writes commentaries to do this. And, by god, there is nothing to prevent the interpreter from touching on this in moderation, but to be completely contentious about the opinions of the author is to exceed the boundaries of interpretation. Therefore, since I am not making this my aim, but what has been mentioned, I will make concise additions to the actual interpretation for the sake of making what was said plausible.

“Nevertheless, there are two different kinds of interpretation, because obscurity itself has two kinds. I think it is better to speak about this in advance; however, I will only speak briefly about these things, like a kind of summary, since they have been discussed at length in my essay On Interpretation. In that work I showed what is actually obscure being such itself through itself, and what in itself did not arise at first, but when there happened to be many differences among readers of the discussion, either in being educated and trained in argument or completely untrained, or with respect to some people being naturally sharp and intelligent, others dull and unintelligent.

“For example, in the book under discussion, On Fractures, where Hippocrates says ‘it must then be stated which of the errors of doctors one wishes to teach, which to unteach’, the passage is obscure itself through itself, since we do not expect there to be any errors that should be taught. Similar also is this one: ‘and the extension of the joint in this configuration has been bent.’ For he is saying the bent configuration of the outstretched arm has the joint at the elbow, but it seems absurd to say that the straight has been bent.

“Nevertheless, what has been said in the following way: ‘if the hinge-like part of the humerus in the cavity of the ulna is fixed in this kind of position, it makes a line with the bones of the ulna and humerus, as if the whole were one’—if someone had observed what the bones under discussion are like, there would be no obscurity; but to someone who does not know the nature of the articulation at the elbow, the passage reasonably appears obscure.

“I think it is better to interpret all such passages, because the majority of the book's readers have not learned anatomy. Nevertheless, it is fitting to pass over what is not like this, saying to those reading this book only this much about them: if you think one of the passages I have interpreted is obscure, first look into whether your book has mistakes by comparing and collating it with the most trustworthy copies. If it appears to be correct, read the same passage a second and a third time paying precise attention to it. For when I read a book together with someone in person, I am able to target the appropriate interpretation precisely, considering on each occasion the ability of the student. But when I am writing for everyone, I do not target those who are best or worst prepared. For in the former case, the interpretation will be obscure for most people; in the latter, it will be irritating for those who have to spend a long time on things that are clear.

“I think what is best, therefore, is to target one whose ability is in the middle; but when I miss this, I rather look to those who are more capable. For in general I do not think it is valuable for those whose ability is less than mediocre to read commentaries: they must be content to understand what has been said by listening many times to their teacher give the same explanations in passage after passage.”

Πρὸ τῆς τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐξηγήσεως ἄμεινον ἀκηκοέναι καθόλου περὶ πάσης ἐξηγήσεως, ὡς ἔστιν ἡ δύναμις αὐτῆς, ὅσα τῶν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασίν ἐστιν ἀσαφῆ, ταῦτ' ἐργάσασθαι σαφῆ. τὸ δ' ἀποδεῖξαί τι τῶν γεγραμμένων ὡς ἀληθὲς ἢ ὡς ψεῦδος ἐλέγξαι, καὶ εἰ κατηγόρησέ τις σοφιστικῶς ἀπολογήσασθαι, κεχώρισται μὲν ἐξηγήσεως, εἴθισται δὲ γίγνεσθαι πρὸς ἁπάντων ὡς εἰπεῖν τῶν γραφόντων ὑπομνήματα. καὶ νὴ Δία οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ τούτου μετρίως ἅπτεσθαι τὸν ἐξηγητήν. τὸ δ' ἀγωνίζεσθαι τελέως ὑπὲρ τῶν τοῦ γράφοντος δογμάτων ἐκπέπτωκε τὸν ὅρον τῆς ἐξηγήσεως. οὐ πρὸς τοῦτον οὖν τὸν σκοπὸν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν εἰρημένον ἀποβλέπων ἐγὼ προσθήσω ταῖς ὄντως ἐξηγήσεσιν ἑκάστοτε βραχέα τῆς πίστεως ἕνεκα τῶν εἰρημένων.

οὔσης μέντοι καὶ κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἐξήγησιν διαφορᾶς διττῆς, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ἀσαφὲς αὐτὸ διττόν ἐστιν, ἄμεινον εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ καὶ περὶ τούτου προειπεῖν, εἰρήσεται δὲ καὶ αὐτὰ ταῦτα διὰ βραχέων, οἷον ἐπιτομή τις, ὧν ἰδίᾳ λέλεκται διὰ μακροτέρων ἐν τῷ περὶ ἐξηγήσεως ὑπομνήματι. δέδεικται δὲ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τὸ μὲν ὄντως ἀσαφὲς αὐτὸ δι' ἑαυτὸ τοιοῦτον ὑπάρχον, τὸ δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πρότερον τὴν γένεσιν οὐκ ἔχον, ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἀκουόντων τοῦ λόγου διαφοραὶ πάμπολλαι τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι κατά τε τὸ προπαιδεύεσθαι καὶ γεγυμνάσθαι περὶ λόγους ἢ παντάπασί γε ἀγυμνάστους ὑπάρχειν, εἶναί τε φύσει τοὺς μὲν ὀξεῖς τε καὶ συνετοὺς, τοὺς δὲ ἀμβλεῖς καὶ ἀσυνέτους.

αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ προκειμένῳ βιβλίῳ τῷ περὶ τῶν καταγμάτων, ἔνθα μέν φησιν ὁ Ἱπποκράτης· ῥητέον οὖν ὁκόσας ἂν ἐθέλει τῶν ἁμαρτάδων τῶν ἰητρῶν τὰς μὲν διδάξαι, τὰς δὲ ἀποδιδάξαι, τὴν ἀσάφειαν ἔχει αὐτὴ δι' ἑαυτὴν ἡ λέξις, οὐ προσδεχομένων ἡμῶν εἶναί τινας ἁμαρτίας, ἃς διδάξαι χρὴ, τοιοῦτόν ἐστι κἀκεῖνο· καὶ ἡ ἀνάτασις τοῦ ἄρθρου κέκλασται ἐν τουτέῳ τῷ σχήματι. τὸ γὰρ ἐκτεταμένης τῆς χειρὸς σχῆμα κεκλασμένον, φησὶν, ἔχει τὸ ἄρθρον τὸ κατ' ἀγκῶνα. δοκεῖ δὲ τοῦτ' ἄτοπον εἶναι κεκλάσθαι φάναι τὸ εὐθύ.

τὸ μέντοι λελεγμένον οὕτως· εἰ τοῦ βραχίονος τὸ γιγγλυμοειδὲς ἐν τῇ τοῦ πήχεος βαθμίδι, ἐν τοιουτέῳ τῷ σχήματι ἐρεῖδον, ἰθυωρίην ποιέει τοῖσιν ὀστέοισι τοῦ πήχεος καὶ τοῦ βραχίονος, ὡς ἓν εἴη τὸ πᾶν. εἰ μέντοι τις ἑώρακεν ὁποῖόν ἐστι τῶν ὀστῶν ἑκάτερον, ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν, οὐδεμίαν ἀσάφειαν ἔχει. τῷ δ' ἀγνοοῦντι τῆς κατ' ἀγκῶνα διαρθρώσεως τὴν φύσιν ἀσαφὴς εἰκότως ἡ λέξις φαίνεται.

δοκεῖ δέ μοι βέλτιον εἶναι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα ἐξηγεῖσθαι, διὰ τὸ τοὺς πλείστους τῶν ἀναγινωσκόντων τὸ βιβλίον ἀμαθεῖς ἀνατομῆς εἶναι. τὰ μέντοι μηδὲν ἐχόντων τοιοῦτον παρέρχεσθαι προσήκει, τοσοῦτον προειπόντα περὶ αὐτῶν ἔτι τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις τὸ βιβλίον, ἐάν τινα λέξιν ὧν ἐξηγησάμην ἀσαφὲς ἔχειν τι νομίσῃς, ἐπίσκεψαι μὲν πρῶτον εἰ μὲν τὸ βιβλίον ἡμάρτηταί σου παραβάλλων τε καὶ ἀντεξετάζων τοῖς ἀξιοπίστοις ἀντιγράφοις· εἶτ' ἂν ὀρθῶς ἔχειν φαίνηται, δεύτερόν τε καὶ τρίτον ἀνάγνωθι τὴν αὐτὴν λέξιν προσέχων ἀκριβῶς αὐτῇ τὸν νοῦν. ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅταν μὲν παρὼν παρόντι συναναγινώσκω τι βιβλίον, ἀκριβῶς στοχάζεσθαι δύναμαι τοῦ μέτρου τῆς ἐξηγήσεως, ἀποβλέπων ἑκάστοτε πρὸς τὴν τοῦ μανθάνοντος ἕξιν. ὅταν δὲ γράφω πᾶσιν, οὔτε τοῦ ἄριστα παρεσκευασμένου οὔτε τοῦ χείριστα στοχάζομαι. τὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῖς πλείστοις ἀσαφὲς ἔσται, τὸ δὲ ἀνιᾶται χρονίζοντας ἐν τοῖς σαφέσιν.

ἄριστον οὖν ἡγοῦμαι τῶν μέσην ἕξιν ἐχόντων στοχάζεσθαι· τούτου δὲ ἀποτυγχάνων ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑκτικωτέρους ἐπόπτειν μᾶλλον. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅλως ὑπομνήμασιν ἐντυγχάνειν ἀξιῶ, τοὺς κατωτέρους τῆς μέσης ἕξεως, οἷς ἀγαπητόν ἐστι παρὰ διδασκάλων ἀκούσασι πολλάκις τὰ αὐτὰ κατ' ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην λέξιν ἑρμηνευόμενα συνιέναι τῶν λεγομένων.

Gal. Hipp. Frac. 18B 318–322 K.

Two reasons Galen wrote commentaries

Because his friends asked him to.

“You have two treatises [by me] which contain everything to do with critical days and crises—for I’m saying this to you, my friends, who compelled me against my better judgment to write commentaries on the works of Hippocrates. Keep in mind that I also wrote those works (sc. on critical days and crises) not intending that they would be distributed, but that they would be for you alone, but they happened to get out and into the hands of many people, just like many others I’ve written for you. That’s why I preferred not to interpret any of Hippocrates’ books in written commentaries. For whatever one needs to learn from him that is useful for the art has been written down by me in many treatises along with the appropriate interpretations [of Hippocrates].

“But since some of the passages that were not expressed very clearly [in Hippocrates’ writings] received a bad interpretation, so that none of those who wrote commentaries satisfied you, and you thought I was better than they were at figuring out Hippocrates’ thought, for this reason you asked me to provide for you in writing what you heard me say in my lectures. And I said the same thing to you earlier, that the interpretations will necessarily be uneven, since I won’t be interpreting all the passages equally, but I will speak more thoroughly about those that I haven’t mentioned in any of my other treatises, while I will speak in summary about those I’ve already gone through in detail elsewhere, so that I’m not forced to write about the same things many times.”

Δύο πραγματείας ἔχετε (πρὸς ὑμᾶς γὰρ λέγω τοῦτο τοὺς ἑταίρους, ὅσοι κατηναγκάσατέ με μὴ προῃρημένον ἐξηγήσεις γράψαι τῶν Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων), ἐν αἷς ἅπαντα περί τε κρισίμων ἡμερῶν εἴρηται καὶ κρίσεων. ἴστε δ’ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὰς οὐχ ὡς ἐκδοθησομένας, ἀλλ’ ὡς παρ’ ὑμῖν μόνοις ἐσομένας ἔγραψα. συνέβη δ’ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτὰς καὶ παρὰ πολλοῖς εἶναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν ὑμῖν γενομένων. ὅθεν οὐδ’ ἐξηγεῖσθαι προῃρούμην ἐν ὑπομνήμασιν οὐδὲν τῶν Ἱπποκράτους βιβλίων. ὅσα γὰρ εἰς τὴν τέχνην χρήσιμα παρ’ αὐτοῦ μαθεῖν ἔδει, γέγραπταί μοι κατὰ πολλὰς πραγματείας ἅμα ταῖς οἰκείαις ἐξηγήσεσιν.

ἐπεὶ δ’ ἔνιαι τῶν λέξεων ἀσαφέστερον εἰρημέναι μοχθηρᾶς ἐξηγήσεως ἔτυχον, ὡς ἀρέσκειν ὑμῖν μηδένα τῶν γραψάντων ὑπομνήματα, βέλτιον δὲ αὐτῶν στοχάσασθαι τῆς Ἱπποκράτους γνώμης ἐδόκουν ὑμῖν ἐγώ, διὰ τοῦτό με καὶ διὰ γραμμάτων ἠξιώσατε, παρασχεῖν ὑμῖν, ἅπερ ἐν ταῖς διὰ λόγων συνουσίαις ἠκούσατε. κἀγὼ τοῦτ’ αὐτὸ προεῖπον ὑμῖν, ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ἔσται τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ἀνωμάλους ἔσεσθαι μὴ πάσας ὁμοίως ἐξηγουμένου μου τὰς λέξεις, ἀλλὰ τελεώτερον μέν, ὑπὲρ ὧν οὐδαμόθι τῶν ἐμῶν πραγματειῶν ἐμνημόνευσα, διὰ κεφαλαίων δέ, περὶ ὧν ἤδη τελέως ἐν ἐκείναις διῆλθον, ἵνα μὴ πολλάκις ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων ἀναγκάζωμαι γράφειν.

Gal. Hipp. Prog. 3.6, 18B.229–231 K. = 328,4–22 Heeg

Because he would be criticized if he didn’t.

“Well, let them say these things, but let them not falsely accuse Herophilus, nor intimidate with a sacred name those who are ignorant of Herophilus’ writings, nor use it to contrive trust in their argument. For it is shameful to dispute something on the basis of witnesses as if one were in a court of law. If you are able to argue towards a demonstration, I’ll gladly listen to you, but to call on Herophilus and the Herophileans as witnesses is to run away from a direct dispute and argument, and for fear of refutation invent evasions and deceptions.

“Clearly, false witnesses are brought in for the sake of a story, not in order to inquire into the matter further. ‘Does Herophilus say this?’ ‘Certainly not.’ ‘But doesn’t that mean you are lying?’ ‘Why don’t you show that I’m lying, show what he says.’ And then some kind of ambiguous passage is presented and there is a fight about what the passage says and what it means. Suddenly, rhetorical exercises on language and meaning are being rolled out, then others on ambiguity and, by Zeus, on inference. But they even apply the whole theory of rhetoric, as if they were practicing a speech, not bringing the subject to a conclusion. For what hasn’t been said by modern doctors about this question, some maintaining that Herophilus also knows this differentia of the pulse, others trying to show that he does not know it?

“Well, both groups have had a hard life and deserve to be pitied, the first for their ignorance, the second for their competitiveness. But we also have a hard life, since it is not enough for us to practice the proper theoretical study of the art, but we want to know what Herophilus said, what Heraclides, Chrysermus, and Hegetor interpreted incorrectly, and what Apollonius and Bacchius and Aristoxenus said. And even if we do not want to, at any rate we are forced to do it and we get to enjoy both troubles: that we get involved in this nonsense when it is unnecessary and that we unwillingly act like they do. Now it turns out that I must do one of two things: either appear to say the opposite of Archigenes, Herophilus and countless others, or show that there is no full pulse according to Herophilus.

“If, therefore, I had chosen this task, I would be just as blameworthy as they are for the vanity of the study; however, as the case stands, having refuted their opinion according to the actual truth of the matter, I will let those people leave who are interested in the practice of the art itself, since we’ve already completed our inquiry into the subject. Anyone who wants and has time to learn about ancient history, I will add the whole thing, showing that Herophilus does not use the term ‘the full pulse’ anywhere for anything.”

ταῦτ’ οὖν αὐτοὶ μὲν λεγέτωσαν, Ἡροφίλου δὲ μὴ καταψευδέσθωσαν, μηδὲ δυσωπείτωσαν ὀνόματι σεμνῷ τοὺς ἀμαθεῖς τῶν Ἡροφίλου γραμμάτων, μηδ’ ἐκ τούτου τὴν πίστιν τῷ λόγῳ ποριζέσθωσαν. αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἐπὶ μαρτύρων ἀγωνίζεσθαι, καθάπερ ἐν δικαστηρίῳ. εἰ λέγειν ἔχεις εἰς ἀπόδειξιν, ἡδέως ἀκουσόμεθά σου. τὸ δ’ Ἡρόφιλόν τε καὶ Ἡροφιλείους καλεῖν μάρτυρας, ἀποδιδράσκοντός ἐστι τὸν ἐξ εὐθείας ἀγῶνα καὶ λόγον καὶ διαδύσεις τε καὶ μηχανὰς ἐξευρίσκοντος ἐλέγχου φόβῳ.

δῆλον, ὡς ἕνεκα τοῦ μὴ περὶ πράγματος ἔτι ζητεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἱστορίας οἱ κατεψευσμένοι μάρτυρες ἐπεισάγονται. λέγει τοῦθ’ Ἡρόφιλος; οὐ μὲν οὖν. ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ ψεύσῃ; δεῖξον πῶς ψεύδομαι, δεῖξον πῶς λέγει. κᾄπειτα λέξις, εἰ οὕτως ἔτυχεν, ἀμφίβολος προβάλλεται καὶ πόλεμος ἄμφ’ αὐτῇ συνίσταται, τί ποθ’ ἡ λέξις λέγει καὶ τί ποτε βούλεται, καὶ κατὰ ῥητὸν ἤδη καὶ διάνοιαν ἐπιχειρήματα ῥητορικὰ καλινδεῖται, καὶ κατ’ ἀμφιβολίαν ἕτερα καὶ κατὰ συλλογισμοὺς νὴ Δία. ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαν οὕτω μεταφέρουσιν τὴν ῥητορικὴν, ὥσπερ ὑπόθεσιν μελετῶντες, οὐ τὸ προκείμενον περαίνοντες. τί γὰρ οὐκ εἴρηται τοῖς νεωτέροις ἰατροῖς εἰς τὸ πρόβλημα, τοῖς μὲν κατασκευάζουσιν ἐπίστασθαι τὸν Ἡρόφιλον καὶ ταύτην τοῦ σφυγμοῦ τὴν διαφορὰν, τοῖς δ’ ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν ἐγχειροῦσι δεικνύειν;

ἀταλαίπωροι μὲν οὖν ἑκάτεροι καὶ ἐλεεῖσθαι δίκαιοι, τῆς μὲν ἀμαθείας οἱ πρότεροι, τῆς φιλονεικίας δ’ οἱ δεύτεροι. ἀταλαίπωροι δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς, οἷς γε οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσκεῖν θεωρίαν τῆς τέχνης, ἀλλὰ τί μὲν Ἡρόφιλος εἶπεν, τί δ’ Ἡρακλείδης τε καὶ Χρύσερμος καὶ Ἡγήτωρ οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐξηγήσαντο, τί δ’ ἂν εἶπεν Ἀπολλώνιός τε καὶ Βακχεῖος καὶ Ἀριστόξενος εἰδέναι βουλόμεθα. καὶ εἰ μὴ βουλόμεθα δὲ, πάντως ἀναγκαζόμεθα καὶ διττῶν ἀπολαύομεν κακῶν, ὅτι τε φλυαροῦμεν οὐδὲν δέον ὅτι τε μὴ βουλόμενοι τοῦτο δρῶμεν, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι· νῦν γοῦν ἐμὲ δεῖ δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ δοκεῖν Ἀρχιγένει τε καὶ Ἡροφίλῳ καὶ μυρίοις ἄλλοις τἀναντία λέγειν, ἢ δεικνύειν, ὅτι καθ’ Ἡρόφιλον οὐδείς ἐστι πλήρης σφυγμός.

εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς ἔργον αὐτὸ προὐχειρισάμην, ἦν ἂν ὁμοίως ἐκείνοις ἄξιος μέμψεως ἐπὶ τῇ ματαίᾳ σπουδῇ· νυνὶ δὲ κατ’ αὐτὴν τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐξελέγξας αὐτῶν τὴν δόξαν, τοὺς μὲν πρὸς αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα τῆς τέχνης σπεύδοντας ἀπολύσω πρὸς ἐκεῖνα, συντετελεσμένης ἡμῖν ἤδη τῆς προκειμένης ζητήσεως. ὅσοι δὲ καὶ ἱστορίαν ἐκμανθάνειν παλαιὰν ἐθέλουσι, καὶ χρόνον εἰς τοῦτ’ ἔχουσιν, ἅπαντα προσθήσω, δεικνὺς ὅτι μηδαμοῦ χρῆται πρὸς μηδὲν Ἡρόφιλος τῷ πλήρει σφυγμῷ.

Gal. Dig. Puls. 4.3, 8.954–956 K.

Galen on Sleep, Health and Heartbreak

More of Galen’s comments on the aphorism attributed to Hippocrates:

“The kinds of habits that influence our health: diet, shelter, work, sleep, sex, thought.”

ἔθος δὲ, ἐξ οἵων ὑγιαίνομεν, διαίτῃσι, σκέπῃσι, πόνοισιν, ὕπνοισιν, ἀφροδισίοισι, γνώμῃ.

Epidemics 6.8.23

Other cases: Maiandros, the augur who predicted his own death; a Cappadocian man who thought the sky would fall.

“In Rome, I recently saw a grammarian named Kallistos whose books were destroyed in the Great Fire that had burned the Temple of Peace. He grieved about this and could no longer sleep. First, he was taken with fever, and then, in just a short time, he wasted away until he died. I have seen quite a number of people like this—whose bodies waste away, be it from grief or from a bad mental state. I will limit myself to a few cases, because their number is too large. First, I mention the story of the mother of the lawyer Nasutus. The story of this woman is as follows. She received news that a woman she loved very much, who was seventy years old, was going by invitation to another place. She arrived there and returned home after having made the long journey. When she returned, she lay down on the bed and asked for some water to drink. The servant replied, “I'll bring it to you right away,” but she fell asleep before the servant returned with the water. By then, some time had passed without the people around the woman noticing anything. When, however, they called to her, she gave no answer. The servants were then compelled to shake her, but she did not wake up. They examined her and touched her body to see what had happened. Her whole body was cold and it was clear that she was dead. They covered her with the clothes in which she had died. When the mother of Nasutus found out about this, it went to her heart so much that she could no longer sleep the way she usually used to do, and eventually she could no longer sleep at all. Her body wasted away from insomnia. She began to have a fever and four days after the news of her friend’s death, she too passed away.”

In Rom sah ich vor kurzem einen Grammatiker, namens Kallistos, dem seine Bücher bei dem großen Brand in Rom, bei dem der Tempel, der “Tempel des Friedens” heißt, verbrannte, vernichtet wurden. Darüber grämte er sich und fand keinen Schlaf mehr. Zuerst begannen bei ihm Fieber, und dann in nicht langer Zeit siechte er dahin, bis er starb. Ich habe noch eine ganze Anzahl derartiger Menschen gesehen, deren Körper dahinsiechte, sei es aus Gram oder einer schlechten Geistesverfassung. Ich beschränke mich auf ein paar Fälle, da ihre Zahl ja zu groß ist. Zuerst erwähne ich die Geschichte der Mutter des Rechtsgelehrten Nasutus. Die Geschichte dieser Frau ist folgende: Sie erhielt die Nachricht, daß eine Frau, die sie sehr liebte und die siebzig Jahre alt war, nach einem anderen Orte auf eine Einladung hin ging. Sie war dort eingetroffen und auch wieder zurückgekehrt, nachdem sie den weiten Weg gemacht hatte. Nach ihrer Rückkehr hatte sie sich auf das Bett gelegt und verlangte etwas Wasser zu trinken. Der Diener hatte geantwortet: “Ich bringe es dir sofort.” Sie schlief aber ein, bevor der Diener mit dem Wasser zurück war. Es verging nun einige Zeit, ohne daß die Leute um die Frau etwas gemerkt hatten. Dann aber riefen sie sie an, aber sie gab keine Antwort. Die Diener sahen sich deshalb gezwungen, sie zu rütteln. Sie wachte aber nicht auf. Sie machten sich nun daran, die Sache zu untersuchen, und befühlten sie, um zu sehen, was mit ihr vorgegangen war. Ihr ganzer Körper war kalt, und es war klar, daß sie tot war. Sie deckten sie mit dem Kleid zu, in dem sie gestorben war. Als die Mutter des Nasutus dies erfuhr, ging es ihr so zu Herzen, daß sie sich nicht mehr zum Schlafen niederlegen konnte, wie sie es sonst gewöhnt war, und überhaupt keinen Schlaf mehr finden konnte. Da siechte auch ihr Körper infolge der Schlaflosigkeit dahin. Sie begann zu fiebern, und schon nach vier Tagen seit der Todesnachricht verschied auch sie.*

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates‘ Epidemics 6.8, 486,19-487,12 Wenkebach/Pfaff

*Pfaff’s German translation of Hunayn’s school’s Arabic translation (the Greek is lost).

“Implausible explanations of things that don’t happen”: Galen on Sabinus on first times

Galen talks about ancient readings, his critics, the difference between conversational and written commentary, and why he sometimes feels he has to write as much as he does.

He’s arguing against a reading of Hippocrates by Sabinus. Now Sabinus is a Hippocratic commentator, roughly contemporary with Galen, maybe a generation or two before. Galen sometimes refers to him directly, sometimes he refers to his circle. It’s not clear whether there’s anything to this. Galen thinks Sabinus’ commentaries, along with those of Rufus of Ephesus and Numisianus, are worth reading—high praise from Galen—, but here he takes issue with his comments on an aphorism about sex and gassy bellies. I’m not sure I’ve totally understood what Galen is saying about why Sabinus thinks the passage is about people just starting to have sex, but Galen thinks this is wrong. It’s not impossible that Hippocrates wrote what Sabinus thinks, however, and so Galen needs to defend his reading in another way, namely by appealing to experience. What Sabinus attributes to Hippocrates never happens, at least according to Galen, and since it doesn’t happen, it’s not something Hippocrates is likely to have said.

Thanks to David and Peter for help with the translation.

Here’s the aphorism as recorded in Wenkebach’s text (it’s different from Littré and Smith, which I also inlcude):

“For some, the belly becomes gassy when they have sex, like Damnagoras; for others, a noise in them, like Arcesilaus.”

Οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστὴρ ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτοισι ψόφος <ὡς> Ἀρκεσιλάῳ.

Epidemics 6.3.12 (136,11–13 Wenkebach-Pfaff)

6.3.5 (3.5 V 294,7–8 Littré) οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστὴρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ· οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτῳ ψόφος, Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ καὶ ᾤδεεν. Τὸ φυσῶδες ξυναίτιον τοῖσι πιτυρώδεσι, καὶ γάρ εἰσι φυσώδεες.

6.3.5 (236,18–21 Smith) ἔστιν οἷσιν ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι φυσᾶται ἡ γαστὴρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτῳ ψόφος. Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ καὶ ᾤδει. τὸ φυσῶδες ξυναίτιον τοῖσι πτερυγώδεσι, καὶ γάρ εἰσι φυσώδεις.

And here is Galen’s commentary:

‘Different people write the passage in different ways, and some add to it the phrase “when they begin”, leaving out the “for some” at the beginning and composing the sentence like this: “when they begin to have sex, the belly becomes gassy”. They want it to say that those who are beginning to have sex, i.e., those who are first trying out this activity, suffer what was indicated in the passage that follows. Now, no ancient book or commentator knows this reading. Nevertheless, Sabinus’ circle says his [i.e. Hippocrates’] account is about those beginning to have sex, even though Hippocrates mentioned one man by name, Damnagoras. This is something he usually does when he goes through something that happens only to a few people. And without anything written about these things by Hippocrates, one should have learned about the phenomenon from experience. For it is not the case that those who are beginning to have sex suffer intestines filled with gas or have a noise contained in them; it is rather that, in rare cases, some of those past their prime and who have the affection called flatulent, hypochondriac and melancholic, more often suffer from intestines filled with gas when they have sex. These same people also have a constant desire for sex.

“Well then, I have said it before many times already: whether I neglect the readings which others have offered in this passage, or whether I talk about them all, there are many people who will find fault with either of them, since they judge the appropriate length of the discussion by their own desires, not the nature of the subject matter. And of course even if I should talk about some things that have been said or written down, and leave out others, even then some of them will blame me because I should have left out some of the things that I discussed since they are clearly frivolous, while I should have discussed some of the things I left out since they are not inferior to what I did discuss. For in our day-to-day intercourse, once we have found out from those present what kind of explanation they want to hear from us, we try to adapt it [sc. the explanation] to their wishes. In a book, however, this is not possible to do. That is why in the majority of passages I generally chose not to mention variants from the ancient reading or interpretations that are altogether unusual. In some cases, however, either when the transmitted text is not altogether implausible *** The readers should keep the commentaries in mind, to mention them in each passage they are burdensome *** [the text is problematic].

‘Sabinus’ circle, then, said that those who attempt sex for the first time suffer what was described in the passage, and assuming this is true, they try to explain the cause of it; but contrary to them, some took [ἐποιήσαντο] this reading of the passage: “it is the case for some that when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy.” Those in Sabinus’ circle say, not without reason, that this happens to those who are beginning to have sex. First, <they say> big and strange changes are happening to the body (for they write like this), and because of these strange changes, epilepsy and nephritis and other chronic conditions affect them. And then <they say> that Democritus said, “man springs from man in sexual intercourse” [DK 32B]. And so for this reason, they say, there is a great deal of irritation since they are unaccustomed to semen and they are affected by the acridity; and in fact the account is common, so they say, to both women and men, and they say the cause in the case of women is clear. For the intestines lie under the womb, while the bladder lies on top of it. It is likely, then, that it holds back the excretion from both when it is stretched and engorged; and so, since the gas is continually stopped up inside, she suffers a build-up of pneuma, and since the urine is stopped, the area around the belly becomes swollen. This, then, is what Sabinus’ circle says, giving implausible explanations of things that do not happen. For these things do not happen to young people when they begin having sex, but to those called melancholic and flatulent, who experience these kinds of things after they are past their prime. For generally being filled with gas occurs because of weakness of the natural heat; when this is strong, none of these things happens.

‘In the Problemata, Aristotle also inquires into the cause on account of which melancholics are sexually excited, and he says they have a lot of gassy pneuma that collects in their hypochondrion, which is why these kinds of affection are called pneumatic and hypochondriac, and both Diocles and Pleistonicus and many other doctors say this is how they are called. It would not be a bad idea to mention a passage from what was written by Aristotle, which goes like this: “Why are melancholics sexually excited? Is it because they are full of pneuma? For semen is an outlet for pneuma. Thus, for this reason when there is much of it, necessarily one often desires to be purged, for then they are relieved” [Problemata 4.30, 880a30-33]. Thus, also for this reason, Rufus chose to write “fear” instead of “noise”, so that Hippocrates’ discussion would be about melancholics, for whom fear is particularly specific. For while their fears are different, there is always some one thing for each of them when they are moderately depressed, otherwise there are two or more, or very many, for some of them even everything. Thus, according to Rufus, the passage will be as follows: “for some, when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy, as for Damnagoras, while for some there is fear in them”; but according to the ancient commentators, it is as it has been written at the start, for I always add their reading, even if it seems to be in error according to the first copyists. For as I have said many times already, once we have said how it was discovered to have been written, we should right away offer some interpretation in addition indicating this very thing. The interpretation of Sabinus’ circle has been discussed.

‘Kapito however wrote it in this way: “It is the case for some, when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy, as for Damnagoras, while for some there is a noise in them.” Dioscorides in this way: “while for some, when they have sex, the belly becomes gassy, as for Damnagoras, for some there is a noise in them.” For he left out the letter delta. Actually, none of the interpreters agree with one another on the interpretation of the word “noise”, some saying it means intestinal rumbling, some belching, some passing gas downwards, some whichever of these is simplest, whatever movement in the intestines is perceptible to hearing, for there are some other motions and “sounds” in the intestines beyond intestinal rumbling, some like echoes, some like hissing or some such manner of noise.

‘“For Arcesilaus, it also used to become swollen.” “For Arcesilaus”, he says, not only did “the belly used to be gassy”, but also “swollen”, i.e., he had an oedema. I have said already many times that he calls all masses that are contrary to nature “oedema”, whether they are inflammatory, erysipelic, or like a hardened swelling; the moderns, however, call only the spongy mass an “oedema”. But just what kind of mass he said Arcesilaus developed is no small inquiry. He seems to me to have meant what is specifically termed such by the moderns. It is implausible that he developed an erysipelas or inflammation or hardened swelling or some other such thing around the time of sexual activities or a little later, and again in addition to not establishing it much. This whole problem has been left out by the commentators. Nevertheless, Hippocrates mentions this Arcesliaus in another place in the book, where he says: “at the onset of this, it is the case that some pass gass, like Arcesilaus.” And so it is clear that for such people the belly is full of gas and that it is caused to be emitted by the tension that arises during sex. Dioscorides wrote the passage in this way: “But for Arcesilaus bad gassiness swelled up” instead of “the gassiness smelled bad”, wanting it to be written in this way, while everyone else begins the second passage with “the gassiness”, as it is written next.’

Καὶ ταύτην τὴν ῥῆσιν ἄλλος ἄλλως γράφει καί τινες προστιθέασιν αὐτῇ τὸ “ὅταν ἄρχωνται”, τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰρημένον «οἷσιν» ἀφαιροῦντες καὶ ποιοῦντες τὴν λέξιν τοιαύτην· “ὅταν ἄρχωνται «ἀφροδισιάζειν, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ»”, βουλόμενοι τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἀφροδισίων, τουτέστι τοὺς πρῶτον ἐπιχειροῦντας τῷ ἔργῳ τούτῳ, πάσχειν τὰ διὰ τῆς ῥήσεως ἐφεξῆς δηλούμενα. καίτοι τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην οὔτε βιβλίον | τι παλαιὸν οὔτ' ἐξηγητὴς οἶδεν. ἀλλ' ὅμως οἱ περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων ἀφροδισιάζειν τὸν λόγον αὐτῷ εἶναί φασι, καίτοι μνημονεύσαντος αὐτονομαστὶ τοῦ Ἱπποκράτους ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ Δαμναγόρου. τοῦτο δ' εἴωθε ποιεῖν, ὅταν ὀλίγοις τισὶ γινόμενον πρᾶγμα διέρχηται. καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τοῦ γεγράφθαι τι περὶ τούτων Ἱπποκράτει τὸ φαινόμενον ἐχρῆν ἐκ τῆς πείρας μαθεῖν. οὐ γὰρ συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἀφροδισίων «ἐμφυσᾶσθαι» τὴν κοιλίαν ἢ «ψόφον» ἴσχειν ἐν αὐτῇ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐνίοις ἐν τῷ σπανίῳ τῶν παρακμαζόντων τε καὶ τὸ καλούμενον πάθημα φυσῶδές τε καὶ ὑποχονδριακὸν καὶ μελαγχολικὸν ἐχόντων «ἐμφυσᾶσθαι» συμβαίνει μᾶλλον «τὴν γαστέρα», ὅταν «ἀφροδισίοις» χρήσωνται. τοῖς δ' αὐτοῖς τού<τοις> ὑπάρχει καὶ τὸ συνεχῶς ὀρέγεσθαι μίξεως.

ὅπερ οὖν πολλάκις ἤδη πρόσθεν εἶπον, ἐάν τε παραλείπω τὰς γραφὰς ἃς ἐποιήσαντο κατὰ τήνδε τὴν ῥῆσιν, ἐάν τ' εἴπω πάσας, ἑκατέρῳ μέμψονται πολλοὶ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίαις κρίνοντες τὸ σύμμετρον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, οὐ τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων φύσει. καὶ μέντοι κἄν | τινα μὲν εἴπω τῶν εἰρημένων τε καὶ γεγραμμένων, τινὰ <δὲ> παραλείπω, καὶ οὕτως ἔσονταί τινες οἱ μεμψάμενοί τινα μὲν τῶν εἰρημένων ὡς ἐχρῆν παραλελεῖφθαι καὶ ταῦτα ληρώδη γε ὄντα, τινὰ δὲ τῶν παραλελειμμένων ὡς ἐχρῆν εἰρῆσθαι μὴ χείρω τῶν εἰρημένων ὄντα. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὰς ὁσημέραι γινομένας συνουσίας ὁποίαν τινὰ βούλονται τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἀκούειν οἱ παρόντες, αὐτῶν ἐκείνων πυθόμενοι ἁρμόττεσθαι πειρῶνται ταῖς βουλήσεσιν αὐτῶν. ἐν βιβλίῳ δ' οὐκ ἔστι πρᾶξαι τοῦτο. διόπερ εἱλόμην ἐν μὲν ταῖς πλείσταις τῶν ῥήσεων ἢ μηδ' ὅλως μνημονεύειν τῶν ὑπαλλαττόντων τὴν ἀρχαίαν γραφὴν ἢ παντάπασιν ἀλλοκότως ἐξηγησαμένων. ἐπί τινων δ' ἤτοι τὰ μὴ παντάπασιν ἀπιθάνως εἰρημένα *** μεμνῆσθαι χρὴ τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰ ὑπομνήματα καθ' ἑκάστην <γὰρ> τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναμιμνῄσκειν αὐτῶν ἐπαχθές.

ὅπερ οὖν ἔλεγον οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον ὡς τοῖς πρῴην τῶν ἀφροδισίων πειρωμένοις συμβαίνει τὰ κατὰ τὴν ῥῆσιν εἰρημένα πάσχειν, ὡς ἀληθὲς ὑποθέμενοι πειρῶνται λέγειν τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ. τινὲς δ' | ἔμπαλιν τοῖσδε τὴν γραφὴν τῆς λέξεως ἐποιήσαντο τοιάνδε· “εἰσὶν «οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ».” οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον οὐκ ἀλόγως φασὶ τοῖς ἀφροδισιάζειν ἀρχομένοις τοῦτο συμβαίνειν· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι μέγας ὁ ξενισμὸς γίνεται περὶ τὸ σῶμα (γράφουσι γὰρ οὕτως αὐτοί), δι' ὃν ξενισμόν φασιν ἐπιληψίαν τε καὶ νεφρίτιδας αὐτοῖς ἕτερά τε χρόνια γίνεσθαι· ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ὅτι <Δημόκριτος> εἶπεν “ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπου ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις ἐκθόρνυσθαι”. καὶ μέντοι καὶ διότι φασὶ πολὺν ὀδαξησμὸν διὰ τὴν ἀήθειαν τοῦ θοροῦ καὶ τὴν δριμύτητα πάσχουσι, καὶ κοινοῦ γε, ὡς λέγουσιν, ὄντος τοῦ λόγου θηλειῶν τε καὶ ἀρρένων, ἐπὶ θηλειῶν φασι σαφῆ τὴν αἰτίαν εἶναι· τῇ γὰρ ὑστέρᾳ τὸ μὲν ἔντερον ὑπεστόρεσται , ἡ κύστις δ' ἐπίκειται· εἰκὸς οὖν ἐντεινομένην αὐτὴν καὶ σφριγῶσαν ἐπέχειν τὴν ἀμφοτέρων ἀπόκρισιν· ἐναπολαμβανομένης οὖν τῆς φύσης συνεχῶς ἐμπνευματοῦσθαι καὶ τοῦ οὔρου δὲ κατεχομένου τὸ ἐπιγάστριον οἰδεῖν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον λέγουσιν, ἀπιθάνους αἰτίας ἀποδιδόντες τῶν μὴ γινομένων. οὐ γὰρ συμβαίνει ταῦτα τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ἀφροδισίων μειρακίοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μελαγχολικοῖς καὶ φυσώδεσιν ὀνομαζομένοις, οἳ καὶ μετὰ τὴν παρακμαστικὴν ἡλικίαν τὰ τοιαῦτα πάσχουσιν. ὅλως γὰρ τὸ φύσης ἐμπίπλασθαι δι' ἀσθένειαν γίνεται τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμάσιας. ἐρρωμένης γὰρ ταύτης τῶν τοιούτων οὐδὲν συμβαίνει.

Ἀριστοτέλης δ' ἐν τοῖς Προβλήμασι καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ζητεῖ, δι' ἣν ἀφροδισιαστικοὺς συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τοὺς μελαγχολικούς, ἀθροίζεσθαί τε πνεῦμά φησιν αὐτοῖς ἐν ὑποχονδρίοις φυσῶδες οὐκ ὀλίγον, διὸ πνευματώδη τε καὶ ὑποχονδριακὰ προσαγορεύεσθαι τὰ τοιαῦτα πάθη, καὶ <Διοκλῆς> δὲ καὶ <Πλειστόνικος> ἕτεροί τε πολλοὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν οὕτως ὀνομάζεσθαί φασιν αὐτά. οὐ χεῖρον δὲ καὶ λέξιν τινὰ τῶν τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει γεγραμμένων εἰπεῖν ἔχουσαν ὧδε· “διὰ τί οἱ μελαγχολικοί <εἰσιν> ἀφροδισιαστικοί; ἢ ὅτι πνευματώδεις. τὸ γὰρ σπέρμα πνεύματος ἔξοδός ἐστι. διότι οὖν πολὺ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἀνάγκη πολλάκις ἐπιθυμεῖν καθαίρεσθαι, κουφίζονται γάρ.” διὰ τοῦτ' οὖν καὶ Ῥοῦφος [ἔλεγεν] ἀντὶ τοῦ «ψόφος» εἵλετο γρά|φειν “φόβος”, ἵνα ὁ λόγος ᾖ τῷ Ἱπποκράτει περὶ τῶν μελαγχολικῶν, οἷς ἐστιν ἰδιαίτατος ὁ φόβος· ἄλλῳ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλο φοβερόν, ἓν γοῦν τι πάντως καθ' ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, ὅταν γε τὰ μέτρια δυσθυμῶσιν, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ δύο καὶ πλείω καὶ πάνυ πολλὰ καί τισιν αὐτῶν ἅπαντα. γενήσεται <δ'> οὖν κατὰ μὲν τὸν <Ῥοῦφον> ἡ λέξις οὕτως ἔχουσα· «οἷσιν, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτοις ὁ φόβος»· κατὰ δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς ἐξηγητάς, ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ γέγραπται, τὴν γὰρ ἐκείνων γραφὴν ἀεὶ προστίθημι, κἂν ἡμαρτῆσθαι δοκῇ κατὰ τοὺς πρώτους ἀντιγραψαμένους. ἄμεινον γάρ, ὡς εἶπον ἤδη πολλάκις, ὅπως εὑρέθη γεγραμμένον εἰπόντας, οὕτως ἤδη προσεπινοεῖν αὐτούς τι δηλοῦντας αὐτὸ τοῦτο. λέλεκται δὲ καὶ ἡ <τῶν> περὶ τὸν Σαβῖνον ἐξήγησις [τε].

Καπίτων δὲ οὕτως ἔγραψεν· ἔστιν «οἷς, ὅταν ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσι δ' ἐν τούτοισι, ψόφος». Διοσκουρίδης δὲ οὕτως· «οἷσι μὲν, ὅταν | ἀφροδισιάζωσι, φυσᾶται ἡ γαστήρ, ὡς Δαμναγόρᾳ, οἷσιν ἐν τούτοισι ψόφος». ἀφεῖλε γὰρ οὗτος τὸ δέλτα. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐξήγησιν τοῦ «ψόφος» ὀνόματος ὡμολόγησαν ἀλλήλοις οἱ ἐξηγηταί, τινὲς μὲν βορβορυγμὸν δηλοῦσθαι λέγοντες, ἔνιοι δ' ἐρυγήν, ἔνιοι δὲ τὰς κάτω διεξιούσας φύσας, ἔνιοι δ' ὅ τι ἂν ᾖ τούτων ἁπλῶς, ἡτισοῦν ἐν τοῖς ἐντέροις κίνησις αἰσθητὴ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλαι τινὲς ἔξωθεν τῶν βορβορυγμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐντέροις κινήσεις τε καὶ «ψόφοι», τινὲς μὲν ἤχοις ἐοικότες, τινὲς δὲ συριγμοῖς ἤ τινι τοιουτοτρόπῳ ψόφῳ

Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ <καὶ ᾤδεε. Ἀρκεσιλάῳ>, φησίν, οὐ μόνον «ἐφυσᾶτο ἡ γαστήρ», ἀλλὰ καὶ «ᾤδει», τουτέστιν οἴδημα εἶχεν. εἴρηκα δὲ ἤδη πολλάκις οἴδημα καλεῖν αὐτὸν ἅπαντα τὸν παρὰ φύσιν ὄγκον, εἴτε φλεγμονώδης εἴτ' ἐρυσιπελατώδης εἴτε σκιρρώδης εἴη, τῶν νεωτέρων μόνον τὸν χαῦνον ὄγκον οἴδημα καλούντων. ἀλλά γε ποῖόν τινα λέγει τὸν ὄγκον γενέσθαι τῷ Ἀρκεσιλάῳ, ζήτημά ἐστιν οὐ μικρόν. ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν δοκεῖ τὸν ἰδίως ὑπὸ τῶν νεωτέρων ὀνομαζόμενον εἰρη|κέναι. [οὐκ] ἔστι δ' ἀπίθανον ἐρυσίπελας ἢ φλεγμονὴν ἢ σκίρρον ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων <αὐτῷ> γενέσθαι περὶ τὸν τῶν ἀφροδισίων καιρὸν ἢ σμικρὸν ὕστερον, αὖθίς τε μετ' οὐ πολὺ καθίστασθαι τοῦτο. τοῖς δ' ἐξηγηταῖς ὅλον τοῦτο παραλέλειπται τὸ σκέμμα. τοῦ μέντοι Ἀρκεσιλάου τούτου καὶ καθ' ἕτερον τόπον τοῦ βιβλίου μέμνηται ὁ Ἱπποκράτης, ἔνθα φησίν· “ἐν τῇσι προσόδοισιν <ἔστιν> οἳ <ἀπο->ψοφοῦσιν, ὡς Ἀρκεσίλαος.” εὔδηλον οὖν ὅτι τοῖς τοιούτοις φύσης ἐστὶν ἡ γαστὴρ μεστὴ καὶ ταύτην ὑπὸ τῆς γινομένης συντονίας ἐν τοῖς ἀφροδισίοις ἐκκρίνεσθαι συμβαίνει. Διοσκουρίδης δὲ οὕτως ἔγραψε τὴν ῥῆσιν· “Ἀρκεσιλάῳ δὲ κακὸν ὤδει τὸ φυσῶδες”, ἀντὶ τοῦ “κακὸν ὤζετο τὸ φυσῶδες”, ὡδὶ γεγράφθαι βουλόμενος, οἱ δ' ἄλλοι πάντες ἀρχὴν τῆς δευτέρας ῥήσεως ἐποιήσαντο “τὸ φυσῶδες”, ὡς ἐφεξῆς γέγραπται.

Galen, Commentary on Epidemics 6.3.12, 17B.25–32 K. = 136,11–140,23 Wenkebach-Pfaff

***Wenkebach or Pfaff notes the Arabic translation in the apparatus, which they translated into German:

Ich habe bei einigen Reden erwähnt, was nicht sehr weit vom Unbefriedigenden ist, oder was gesagt wurde, wie es sich nicht gehört, aber doch unverdienterweise gelobt wurde.

“In a few discussions, I have mentioned what was not very far from being unsatisfactory, or what was said in a way that was inappropriate, but undeservedly praised.”

The first part seems to translate “ἐπί τινων δ' ἤτοι τὰ μὴ παντάπασιν ἀπιθάνως εἰρημένα […]” = “in a few discussions, <I have> mentioned what was not very far from being unsatisfactory.” The next part is anyone’s guess, but it probably continued the second disjunct ἢ and a finite verb. Then a new sentence and a question whether μεμνῆσθαι goes with χρὴ or not. μεμνῆσθαι χρὴ τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰ ὑπομνήματα, καθ' ἑκάστην <γὰρ> τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναμιμνῄσκειν αὐτῶν ἐπαχθές or μεμνῆσθαι. χρὴ […] ἀναμιμνῄσκειν. If we try the latter and take out Wenkebach’s “γὰρ”, we have: χρὴ <δὲ?> τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰ ὑπομνήματα καθ' ἑκάστην τὴν ῥῆσιν ἀναμιμνῄσκειν αὐτῶν ἐπαχθές. This isn’t totally intelligible, and says something like “it is necessary that those who read commentaries in each passage remember them nuisances.” This obviously isn’t right—I have no idea what to do with ἐπαχθές and I’m not sure if καθ' ἑκάστην τὴν ῥῆσιν goes with ὑπομνήματα or ἀναμιμνῄσκειν. I would like it if the passage says what Wenkebach wants it to say (or what I think he wants it to say), something like “it is necessary for the readers to keep the commentaries in mind, for to recall them in each passage would be burdensome”, but I can’t see how this would work. “Nuisance” (ἐπαχθές) seems to modify “the commentaries” (τὰ ὑπομνήματα)—I can’t see what else it might be doing.

Galen on fear, depression and the health of the body: the story of Maiandros

Taken from a part of Galen’s commentary on Epidemics 6 that is extant in Arabic but not in Greek. I’m following Pfaff’s German translation of the Arabic. Galen is commenting on an aphorism which states that our mental and physical habits—things like daily routine, our home, our sex life and our mental habits—have an effect on our body’s health:

“The kinds of habits that influence our health: diet, shelter, work, sleep, sex, thought.”

ἔθος δὲ, ἐξ οἵων ὑγιαίνομεν, διαίτῃσι, σκέπῃσι, πόνοισιν, ὕπνοισιν, ἀφροδισίοισι, γνώμῃ.

Epidemics 6.8.23

Galen defends and elaborates on the claim using an example from his own experience, where being overcome by emotion led to illness and death.

“I know a great number of people who were overcome by fear of death and whom this fear first made ill and then brought to death. Some were plunged into such fear by a dream; for others, such fear was caused by a premonition, or an omen, or a strange apparition they had, or the fall of a bolt of lightning. Some were brought to it by the sign they found in the entrails of the sacrificial animal, or by an augury of some kind of bird, as happened to the augur, Maiandros. This man was overcome by such a fear of death that he died of it, not to mention the illness he suffered. The story of Maiandros goes like this: he was a man from that part of Mysia which lies near the Hellespont and is a part of our province of Asia. His place of residence in this country was primarily Pergamon. The practice of augury was his occupation. It was his livelihood and his profession. Everyone who consulted him attested to his skill in his occupation. Now it was the custom of this Maiandros every year on his birthday to ask the gods to send him a sign by which he could see how he would fare in the following year. So one year he went out to observe the flight of birds and saw an eagle flying in a way that signified death. It then became certain in his soul that this was a sign from which there was no escape. He went back to the city from the place of the bird’s flight, slumped over, miserable and yellow in colour, so that those who met him asked him whether he was in any physical pain. To those he trusted, he told the truth. Then it came about that he lay sleepless for whole nights and was oppressed by sorrow all day long, so that he completely fell apart. Eventually mild, gentle fevers arose. When the fevers set in, his mind became so confused that he was outside himself and had to stay in bed. Two months after his birthday he died because his body gradually wasted away until it completely dissolved.”

So kenne ich eine große Zahl von Leuten, welche Furcht vor dem Tode überkam und welche diese Furcht zuerst krank machte und dann zu Tode brachte. Manche stürzte ein Traum in solche Furcht. Bei manchen erzeugte solche Furcht eine Ahnung oder ein Vorzeichen oder eine seltsame Erscheinung, die sie hatten, oder das Niedergehen eines Blitzstrahles. Manche brachte dazu das Anzeichen, welches sie in so den Eingeweiden des Opfertieres fanden, oder ein Augurium von irgendwelchen Vögeln, wie es dem Augur Maiandros erging. Diesen Mann überkam eine solche Angst vor dem Tode, daß er schon an ihr starb, ganz abgesehen von der Krankheit. Die Geschichte des Maiandros ist folgende: er war ein Mann aus dem Teile Mysiens, der dem Hellespont nahe liegt, und es ist ein Teil von unserem Lande Asien. Sein Aufenthalt in diesem Lande war meistens Pergamon. Die Ausführung des Auguriums war seine Tätigkeit. Sie war sein Broterwerb und sein Beruf. Jeder, der ihn zu Rate zog, bezeugte ihm seine Fertigkeit in seiner Tätigkeit. Nun war es die Gewohnheit dieses Maiandros, alljährlich an seinem Geburtstag Gott den Allmächtigen und Erhabenen zu bitten, ihm ein Zeichen zu schicken, an dem er erkennen könne, wie es ihm im folgenden Jahre ergehen werde. Und so ging er eines Jahres zur Beobachtung des Vogelfluges hinaus und sah einen Adler, der ih einer Form flog, die den Tod bedeutet. Da ward es ihm in seiner Seele gewiß, daß dies ein Zeichen sei, vor dem es kein Entrinnen gebe. Da ging er von dem Ort des Vogelfluges zusammengesunken, elend und gelb von Farbe nach der Stadt zurück, so daß diejenigen, welche ihm begegneten, ihn fragten, ob er irgend einen körperlichen Schmerz habe. Zu wem er Vertrauen hatte, sagte er die Wahrheit. Dann stellte es sich ein, daß er ganze Nächte schlaflos lag und ihn auch den ganzen Tag der Kummer bedrückte, so daß er ganz zerfiel. Schließlich traten leichte, sanfte Fieber auf. Als die Fieber sich einstellten, wurde sein Geist so verwirrt, daß er überhaupt nicht mehr bei sich war und das Bett hüten mußte. Zwei Monate nach seinem Geburtstage starb er dadurch, daß sein Körper allmählich dahin schwand, bis er sich ganz auflöste.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates‘ Epidemics 6.8, 485,25-486,12 Wenkebach/Pfaff

Reading with Galen: when good authors say false things

Another one Maria pointed out to me.

Idola theatri

“Whenever an obviously false statement is found in the writings of an intelligent author, it’s normal for their students to become puzzled. At first, they doubt themselves and do not trust that they understand what is obvious; then, after a while, they suspect something of what they are reading is false.”

Ὁπόταν ἐν ἀνδρὸς φρονίμου συγγράμματι λόγος εὑρεθῇ προφανῶς ψευδής, εἰκότως ἀπορεῖσθαι συμβαίνει τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας αὐτόν, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπιστεῖν, ὡς μηδὲ τὰ φανερά γινώσκουσι, εἶθ᾿ ἑξῆς ὑποπτεύειν, μή τι τῶν ὑποκειμένων ψευδὲς εἴη.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms 6.34, 18A.55 Kühn

The aphorism in question…

“Bald people do not get large varicose veins; bald people who do get varicose veins grow their hair back again.”

Ὁκόσοι φαλακροὶ, τουτέοισι κιρσοὶ μεγάλοι οὐ γίνονται· ὁκόσοισι δὲ φαλακροῖσιν ἐοῦσιν κιρσοὶ γίνονται, πάλιν οὗτοι γίνονται δασέες.

Aphorisms 6.34, 4.570 Littré

Conspiracy Theories

After a couple years’ work, Maria Βörno and I are finishing up a paper about the criteria Galen uses to decide when a work should or should not be attributed to Hippocrates. Galen’s work on this, On the Genuine and Spurious Writings of Hippocrates (Περὶ τῶν γνησίων τε καὶ νόθων Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων), is lost, but Maria is preparing a critical edition of Galen’s commentary on the seventh book of the Aphorisms, which is a great source for examples of how Galen attacks earlier Hippocratic interpreters’ attributions.

Maria found this one, where Galen invents something like a conspiracy theory explaining why the seventh book is full of spurious material (we give Kühn’s text below):

“Still, I think the people who interpolated these aphorisms composed them using these words for the following reason: to make the passage confusing, like an enigma, and need a lot of research, at which point they can position themselves as interpreters of what was said and gain the respect of the youth. Just from looking at this aphorism, it should be obvious to you that all of these unclear passages provide the sophists a pretext for garrulity.”

ἀλλ᾽ οἱ τούτους τοὺς ἀφορισμοὺς παρενθέντες δοκοῦσί μοι χάριν αὐτοῦ τούτοις συνθεῖναι, τοῦ συγκεχύσθαι τε τὸν λόγον, ὥσπερ αἴνιγμα, καὶ δεῖσθαι ζητήσεως πολλῆς, ἐν ᾗ καθιστάντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐξηγητὰς τῶν λεγομένων εὐδοκιμοῦσι παρὰ τοῖς μειρακίοις. ὅτι δὲ οἱ λόγοι πάντες οἱ ἀσαφεῖς ἀφορμὰς πολυλογίας παρέχουσι τοῖς σοφισταῖς δῆλον ἔσται σοι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦτον τὸν ἀφορισμόν.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms VII 69 (XVIIIA 184–185 K.)

Nicknames

I

Satyros from Thasos, nicknamed Griffinfox (Γρυπαλώπηξ).* When he was around 25 years old, he started having frequent wet dreams. It happened to him often during the day, as well. Around the time he turned 30, he became consumptive and died.

Σάτυρος ἐν Θάσῳ παρωνύμιον ἐκαλεῖτο Γρυπαλώπηξ* περὶ ἔτεα ἐὼν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσιν, ἐξωνείρωσσε πολλάκις. προῄει δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ δι’ ἡμέρης πλεονάκις· γενόμενος δὲ περὶ ἔτεα τριήκοντα φθινώδης ἐγένετο καὶ ἀπέθανεν.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 6.8.29, 5.354 Littré (nb: I’ve given Smith’s text)

Στρυμάργου: Dioscorides knows this reading, as well—not only Στομάργου [see IV below]. He doesn’t interpret this one as a proper name, either; instead, he says it indicates someone with manic excitement about sex. For many other epithets are also mentioned in Hippocrates in the same way, like Μυοχάνη, Σαράπους, Γρυπαλώπηξ.* But even in Erasistratos, he says, [we find] ῥινοκολοῦρος.

Στρυμάργου: οἶδε καὶ ταύτην τὴν γραφὴν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης, οὐ μόνον τὴν Στομάργου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ὡς κύριον ὄνομα ἐξηγεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸν μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον, περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια δηλοῦσθαί φησιν. εἰρῆσθαι γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Ἱπποκράτει καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπίθετα, καθάπερ Μυοχάνη, Σαράπους, Γρυπαλώπηξ. ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ' Ἐρασιστράτῳ φησὶν ὁ ῥινοκολοῦρος.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.142 K.

*γρυπαλώπηξ: γρύψ (griffin) + ἀλώπηξ (fox). γρύψ enters English as both the griffin and the wyvern, a bipedal dragon.

II

Raw and liquid feces are checked with solid millet cooked in oil—like the sailor-boy and <Myriochaune or the woman with her mouth open or> the joking-woman.

Τὰ ὠμὰ διαχωρήματα καὶ ὑγρὰ κέγχρος στερεὸς ἐν ἐλαίῳ ἑφθὸς ἵστησιν, οἷον τὸ ναυτοπαίδιον, καὶ ἡ Μυριοχαύνη.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.1.12, 5.82 Littré (Smith’s text)

Μηριοχάνη: a woman's name.

†Μηριοχάνη· ὄνομα γυναικός.

Erotian, Collection of Words used by Hippocrates, μ 2 (59,8 Nachmanson)

Μυοχάνη: epithet of a woman with her mouth open. But if Μυριοχαύνη is written, she would be a woman who makes lots of jokes.

Μυοχάνη: ἐπίθετον χασκούσης. εἰ δὲ Μυριοχαύνη γράφοιτο, ἡ ἐπὶ μυρίοις ἂν εἴη χαινουμένη.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.142 K.

III

Serapis <or the woman with her toes splayed> was swollen from a moist belly. Itching started—I don’t know on what day. No progress. She had an abscess in her waist; when it blackened, she died.

Ἡ Σεράπις ἐξ ὑγρῆς κοιλίης ᾤδησεν· κνησμοὶ δ' οὐκ οἶδα ποσταίῃ, οὐ πρόσω· ἔσχε δ’ ἔτι καὶ ἀπόστημα ἐν κενεῶνι, ὅπερ μελανθὲν ἀπέκτεινεν.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.2.3, 5.84 Littré (Smith’s text)

Σαράπους: A woman having the toes of her feet spread out and splayed.

Σαράπους: ἡ διασεσηρότας καὶ διεστῶτας ἔχουσα τοὺς δακτύλους τῶν ποδῶν.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.142 K.

IV

And <the Babbling-Woman or> the wife of Stymarges, after a confusion lasting a few days, was very constipated. She aborted a female child after the constipation, was healthy for four months, then became swollen.

Καὶ ἡ Στυμάργεω ἐκ ταραχῆς ὀλιγημέρου πολλὰ στήσασα, καὶ παιδίου μετὰ στάσιν θήλεος ἀποφθορῆς τετραμήνου ὑγιήνασα, ᾤδησεν.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.2.4, 5.84-6 Littré (Smith’s text and name for the woman)

Στομάργου: In the second book of the Epidemics, Dioscorides writes as follows: ‘and it refers to manic babbling,’ he says. But others write Στυμάργου and interpret it as a proper name.

Στομάργου: ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν ἐπιδημιῶν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης οὕτως γράφει καὶ δηλοῦσθαί φησι τοῦ λαλοῦντος μανικῶς. οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι στυμάργου γράφουσι καὶ ὄνομα κύριον ἀκούουσι.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.141 K.

Galen on what to do with a patient who thinks the sky will fall

"I know a man from Cappadocia who had put a nonsensical thing in his head and because of it fell into melancholy. The idea he had put in his head was frankly ridiculous. His friends saw him cry and asked him about his sorrow. Sighing deeply, he answered by saying he was afraid the whole world would collapse. His worry was that the Titan, who the poets say holds up the world and is called Atlas, had become weak because of the length of time he has been holding it up, and therefore, there is a danger that the heavens will fall down to earth and smash to pieces. You have also heard from me the story of the woman who I mentioned had imagined she swallowed a snake, and the story of the man who believed that a ghost had called out to him as he passed the churchyard, and the story of the man who had farted in the presence of other people, and who wasted away and died out of shame. The physician must therefore consider it his job, besides the other dispositions of the patient, to discover the things that oppress his soul. For healing a person for whom the cause of illness lies in his spirit can only be achieved by eliminating the idea that has become fixed, but not by food and drink, or their home, bathing routine, walking and the like."

Ich kenne einen Mann aus Kappadokien, der sich eine unsinnige Sache in den Kopf gesetzt hatte und dadurch der Melancholie verfiel. Die Idee, die er sich in den Kopf gesetzt hatte, war geradezu lächerlich. Seine Bekannten sahen ihn nämlich weinen und fragten ihn nach seinem Kummer. Indem er tief seufzte, antwortete er und sagte, er sei in Angst, daß die ganze Welt einstürze. Sein Kummer sei, daß der König, von dem die Dichter erzählen, daß er die Welt trage und Atlas heiße, infolge der langen Zeit, in der er sie trage, schwach to geworden sei. Deshalb sei Gefahr, daß der Himmel auf die Erde herabstürze und sie zertrümmere. Ihr habt von mir auch schon die Geschichte der Frau gehört, von der ich erzählte, daß sie sich einbildete, eine Schlange verschluckt zu haben, und die Geschichte des Mannes, der glaubte, daß ein Toter ihn gerufen habe, als er am Kirchhof vorbeiging, und die Geschichte von dem Mann, dem in Anwesenheit von Leuten ein Wind entfahren war und der aus Scham darüber hin siechte und starb. Der Arzt muß also es als seine Aufgabe betrachten, außer den übrigen Neigungen des Kranken auch die Dinge ausfindig zu machen, die seinen Geist bedrücken. Denn die Heilung eines Menschen, dessen Krankheitsursache in seinem Geiste liegt, kann nur durch Beseitigung der fixen Idee, nicht aber durch Speisen und Getränke, durch Wohnung, Baden, Marschieren und dergleichen erreicht werden.*

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics VI, 8  (487,3-23 Wenkebach/Pfaff)

*Pfaff's German translation of Hunayn's school's Arabic translation (the Greek is lost). 

"When the soul is inflamed", part II

... Galen discusses the opinions of Aristotle, Plato and the Stoics on the relationship between nature, soul, vital breath and innate heat. Some physicians, perhaps the Pneumatists, were interested in finding the Stoic view already articulated by Hippocrates, particularly in a work called On Sevens, and in Epidemics 6, which is being discussed here. I've added paragraph breaks to make the text easier to read. This is a continuation from part i...

---

In fact, some of those who wrote commentaries on the book under discussion say the word 'born' was written in the sense of 'becomes better'. They suppose it [sc. the soul] becomes better over time for those who are concerned about science and wisdom. This discussion, however, is neither medical nor is it consistent with what comes next, for it is clear from the following quotation that 'produced' is said about the substance of [the soul]: "when it is inflamed together with disease, the soul also consumes the body." The word 'inflamed' would seem to indicate Hippocrates thinks the substance of the soul is the innate heat, which he uses as a cause of natural activities in many other places.

On this point, there is also a great difference of opinion among philosophers. Some believe the substance of the soul and of nature are identical, some of these ones positing its existence in pneuma, others in a specific quality of the body. Certain people think it is not one substance, but claim each of them is distinct and differ not just in a small way in species, but wholly in kind. In this case, they think that the substance of nature is perishable, while that of the soul is imperishable.

Now, Aristotle and Plato introduce both capacities using one word, not only calling that by which we think and remember 'soul', but also the capacity in plants by which they are nourished, increased and preserved until they dry out over time. For the Stoics, on the other hand, it is customary to refer 'nature' to that by which plants are governed, 'soul' that by which animals are. They posit that the substance of both is the co-natural pneuma, and they think these differ from each other by quality: the pneuma of the soul is drier, that of nature more moist, but both require not only food in order to persist, but also air.

Whoever thinks the person who introduced this opinion is Hippocrates, according to what was mentioned in On Sevens, say the word 'born' is mentioned concerning the production in them of additional stuff from both substances, of food and air, since it is clearly observable and we know the usefulness of each of them. For it has been proven that respiration preserves the balance of the innate heat, while ingestion of food replenishes the flowing-out of bodily substance. Moreover, if the soul is a kind of form of the body, it would be appropriate to say that 'it is born until death.'  

Now, if there is some other substance, then concerning the one called 'nature', which Aristotle calls 'threptic', Plato 'epithumetic', what was said would be true; but it would not be true in the case of the 'dianoetic' soul. Certainly, that the innate heat, to which Hippocrates very often refers bodily functions, is inflamed, not only when it is no longer able to complete its previous activities or nourish us —which is its most important function—but also when it destroys and consumes like fire does, this is clear to us when we look carefully at the text and when we see the colliquesence of the body produced by excessively hot fevers.

Left out of the whole discussion is the third 'soul' or 'capacity' or whatever you might want to call it, which Plato called 'spirited'. It is good to mention this so that nothing is left out of our discussion about the soul. One kind of innate warmth, by which blood is produced, is contained in the liver. But a different, greater warmth has been received by the heart for the production of emotion. For if there is some use for it, as it has been pointed out in On the Opinions of Hippocrates and Plato, the one warmth needs respiration, the other transpiration. For thus it is customary for doctors to call what occurs through the artery along its whole body a 'double-activity', sending out residues at systole, drawing in outside air at diastole.

τῶν μέντοι γραψάντων ὑπομνήματα τοῦ προκειμένου βιβλίου τινὲς ἀντὶ τοῦ βελτίων γίνεται τὸ «φύεταί» φασιν εἰρῆσθαι. γίνεσθαι δ' αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ βελτίονα νομίζουσι τοῖς προνοουμένοις ἐπιστήμης τε καὶ σοφίας, ἀλλ' οὔτε ἰατρικὸς ὁ λόγος οὔθ' ὁμολογῶν τοῖς ἐπιφερομένοις. ὅτι γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς εἴρηται τὸ «φύεται», δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ φάναι· «ἢν δ' ἐκπυρωθῇ, ἅμα τῇ νούσῳ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ <καὶ> τὸ σῶμα φέρβεται». καὶ δόξειε δ' ἂν ἐνδείκνυσθαι τὸ «ἐκπυρωθῇ» ῥῆμα τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεῖσθαι τὸν Ἱπποκράτην τὸ ἔμφυτον εἶναι θερμὸν, ὃ καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν ἔργων αἰτιᾶται πολλαχόθι.

μέγιστον δ' ἐνταῦθα κινεῖται δόγμα διαπεφωνημένον καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς φιλοσόφοις. ἔνιοι μὲν ἡγοῦνται μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι ψυχῆς τε καὶ φύσεως, οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τιθέμενοι τὴν ὕπαρξιν αὐτῶν, οἱ δ' ἐν τῇ τοῦ σώματος ἰδιότητι. τινὲς δὲ οὐ μίαν, ἀλλ' ἰδίαν ἑκατέρᾳ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναί φασι καὶ οὐ σμικρῷ γ' <εἴδει> τινὶ διαφερούσας, ἀλλ' ὅλῳ τῷ γένει, ὅπου γε καὶ τὴν μὲν τῆς φύσεως φθαρτὴν εἶναι ἡγοῦνται, τὴν δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἄφθαρτον.

Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν οὖν καὶ Πλάτων ὑπὸ μίαν προσηγορίαν ἀμφοτέρας ἄγουσι τὰς δυνάμεις, οὐ μόνον ᾗ λογιζόμεθα καὶ μεμνήμεθα ψυχὴν καλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς, ᾗ τρέφεταί τε καὶ αὔξεται καὶ διασῴζεται, μέχρι περ ἂν ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ ξηρανθῇ. τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς δ' ἔθος ἐστὶ φύσιν μὲν ὀνομάζειν, ᾗ τὰ φυτὰ διοικεῖται, ψυχὴν δὲ ᾗ τὰ ζῷα, τὴν οὐσίαν ἀμφοτέρων μὲν τίθενται τὸ σύμφυτον πνεῦμα καὶ διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων οἴονται ποιότητι. ξηρότερον μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὑγρότερον δὲ τὸ τῆς φύσεως εἶναι, δεῖσθαι δ' ἄμφω πρὸς διαμονὴν οὐ τροφῆς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀέρος.

καὶ ὅσοι γε τοῦ δόγματος τούτου νομίζουσιν ἡγεμόνα τὸν Ἱπποκράτην γεγονέναι, καθάπερ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἑβδομάδων εἴρηται, τὸ «φύεσθαι» λέγουσιν εἰρῆσθαι κατὰ τῆς γινομένης ἐν αὐτοῖς προσθέσεως ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν οὐσιῶν, τῆς τε <τροφῆς καὶ> τοῦ ἀέρος, <ὡς> ἐναργῶς φαίνεται καὶ τὴν ἑκατέρου χρείαν ἐπιστάμεθα (δέδεικται γὰρ ἡ μὲν ἀναπνοὴ τὴν συμμετρίαν τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας φυλάττειν, ἡ δὲ τῶν σιτίων προσφορὰ τὸ διαρρέον τῆς σωματικῆς οὐσίας ἀναπληροῦν) καὶ, εἴπερ εἶδός τι τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή, προσηκόντως ἂν λέγοιτο «φύεσθαι μέχρι τοῦ θανάτου». 

εἰ δ' ἐστὶν ἑτέρα τις αὐτῆς <ἡ> οὐσία, <περὶ ταύτης> τῆς φύσεως, ἣν Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν ὀνομάζει θρεπτικὴν, ἐπιθυμητικὴν δὲ Πλάτων, ἀληθὲς ἂν εἴη τὸ εἰρημένον, οὐκ ἀληθὲς δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς διανοητικῆς ψυχῆς. ὅτι μέντοι τὸ ἔμφυτον θερμόν, ᾧ μάλιστα ἀναφέρει τὰ σωματικὰ τῶν ἔργων ὁ Ἱπποκράτης, ἐκπυρωθὲν οὐ μόνον οὐκέτι δύναται τὰς ἔμπροσθεν ἐνεργείας ἐπιτελεῖν οὐδὲ τρέφειν ἡμᾶς, ὅπερ ἦν ἔργον αὐτῷ κυριώτατον, ἀλλὰ διαφθείρει τε καὶ τήκει καθάπερ τὸ πῦρ, εὔδηλόν ἐστι τῷ λόγῳ σκοπουμένοις ἡμῖν καὶ τὰς <γινομένας> ὑπὸ τῶν διακαῶν πυρετῶν συντήξεις τοῦ σώματος ἐναργῶς ὁρῶσι.

παραλελειμμένης δὲ κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον λόγον ἅπαντα τῆς τρίτης ψυχῆς ἢ δυνάμεως ἢ ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃς ὀνομάζειν αὐτήν, ἣν ὁ Πλάτων ἐκάλει θυμοειδῆ, καὶ περὶ ταύτης ἄμεινόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ἕνεκα τοῦ μηδὲν ἔτι ὑπολείπεσθαι κατὰ τὸν περὶ ψυχῆς λόγον. θερμασία μέν τις ἔμφυτος ἐν ἥπατι περιέχεται, καθ' ἣν αἷμα γεννᾶται· θερμασία δὲ ἑτέρα πλείων ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν εἰς θυμοῦ γένεσιν ἡμῖν δοθεῖσα. καὶ γὰρ <εἰ> χρεία τούτου τίς ἐστιν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν Ἱπποκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος δογμάτων ἐπιδέδεικται, δεῖται μὲν αὕτη ἡ θερμασία τῆς ἀναπνοῆς, ἡ δ' ἑτέρα τῆς διαπνοῆς. οὕτω γὰρ ὀνομάζειν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῖς ἰατροῖς τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν γινομένην καθ' ὅλον τὸ σῶμα διττὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἐκπεμπουσῶν αἰθαλῶδες περίττωμα κατὰ τὴν συστολὴν, ἑλκουσῶν δὲ τὸν πέριξ ἀέρα κατὰ τὴν διαστολήν.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics 6, 5.5 (272,10-274,11 Wenkebach = XVIIB 249-253 Kühn)